CONSCIENCE ISSUES
IN BRITISH POLITICS
What arguments are used to justify hunting? Given
the overwhelming levels of public opposition, why is hunting
still legal?
Hunting has become a thorny political issue. People have
strong views on the subject, the majority of whom would like
to see the sport banned. This essay will concentrate on analysing
why hunting has developed how it has and why it has developed
in this way. This will be possible by considering the arguments
for and against and seeing how they stand up against each
other. This analysis should help to discover why hunting is
legal in this country.
Hunting as a sport, is primarily connected with the elite.
Seen as the sport of rich men, it was seen as a pastime only
the upper class could afford. Foxhunting actually coincided
with the emergence of powerful new rural gentry, who wanted
to demonstrate their economic dominance over land workers.
According to one participant:
“…fox-hunting is part of a desire to enhance
the status of country gentleman…”
Members of the gentry denied that the sport was open purely
to one class and that people from all walks of society could
take part:
“…the hunting field welcomed hunters regardless
of position in society…”
“…the lower orders of the people are entitled
to their amusements as well as the higher.”
Yet the majority who endorsed and participated in hunting
were decidedly conservative, patriotic and militaristic. The
same views are in force today, but the pro-hunting crowd are
happy to stand up for the sport.
Money is a factor: foxes kill poultry, resulting in economic
loss. Yet one of the most prevalent arguments is that hunting
is just a sport. People enjoy going on a hunt, it is a popular
pastime. The anti-hunting groups complain about the suffering
caused to the animals, but this is just a part of the game
as it is with many sports:
“A certain amount of suffering is inevitable in all
field sports.”
Animals are a lower form of life and those in favour of hunting
recognise this. They believe there can be no practical morality
were animals are concerned.
Some people believe that hunting is now more acceptable than
in the past and that it has undergone a
transformation from a bloody pastime, to a respected sport.
Justification for this includes hunters being removed from the
kills, leaving the hounds to become the central players; sporting
qualities being considered above all others; strict prohibitions
relating to hunters eating or killing the fox; and a hunt requiring
specialisation, organisation and regulation . Where once the
hunt culminated in the kill and the anticipation of a meal,
it is now seen as a sport. Foxes make a good chase animal, relying
on speed and stamina, proving why they are a popular choice
to chase.
For the pro-hunter, the consideration of animal welfare is not
a factor. According to McCloskey, only things that have interests
have rights and animals cannot have interests . The huntsman
has in fact preserved the fox by hunting it, because the animal
would have otherwise been exterminated from managed farmlands,
seen as a pest to the welfare of the farm . Hunting has therefore
conferred some benefits on the fox population of the United
Kingdom: it has been allowed to live free in a habitat to which
it is well adapted. The hunted prey usually escapes unharmed
or the kill is guaranteed during the chase, the hunters also
acknowledge that the killing is done only as a matter of necessity.
The way in which hunting is portrayed in the media has angered
members of the hunting community. The sport is seen to be inhumane
and barbaric, but how can the majority of people understand?
Those making the most noise about banning the chase live in
the city, how can they contemplate banning a sport that takes
place in the countryside? There are over 16,000 people employed
in the industry, in a sport done for fun: people do get great
pleasure from hunting. Even though it can be a form of pest
control – foxes kill other wild animals – hunts
only hill approximately 5% of the fox population per annum.
Calls for participants to be prosecuted are ludicrous: even
if it were criminalised, there are over 200,000 people on average
who hunt each year, how could this many people be disciplined?
Of course the overriding factor in all of this, is what the
government wants. A ban on hunting would almost certainly lead
to the collapse of the countryside, for example, a large number
of dogs would have to be put down. Labour wouldn’t want
this, nor the bad publicity it would bring from disgruntled
countryside dwellers.
It was thought that the election of the Labour Party would give
anti-hunting lobbyists a greater chance to have their wishes
heard and implemented. However the Conservatives have shown
support for blood sports, as have the House of Lords. The latter
has proved a stumbling block for anti-hunting legislation, for
example, between 1994 and 1995 McFall’s bill secured a
255 to nil vote in favour of a second reading, but the bill
ran out of time in the Lords .
Pro-hunters have stood up for their sport for years and there
is much evidence to support this case. Those in opposition have
fought just as hard.
In their 1997 Election Manifesto, the Labour Party promised
a free vote in Parliament on whether hunting with dogs should
be banned:
“We will ensure greater protection for wildlife.”
This was seen as a timely step forward for the proponents
of banning hunting. The League Against Cruel Sports was formed
in 1924 to campaign for the abolition of sports it deemed
cruel and inhumane. It believes that a ban on all forms of
hunting wild mammals with dogs is essential and that there
should be a distinction between rural pursuits and animal
abuse in the countryside. In addition it believes that the
development of cruelty free sports will give opportunities
for rural business development and for improving quality of
life in the countryside .
The League believe that hunting is associated with an abusive
culture; that animals are chased for pleasure; opponents of
hunting are abused and intimidated; hunts trespass where they
are not welcome; and domestic animals are often killed by
hounds. In evidence considered by the Committee of Inquiry
into Hunting with Dogs, it was alleged that the sport is based
on the abuse of animals for human pleasure and that there
is no economic or agricultural justification for it .
The development of the human treatment of animals during the
last few years, have helped to formulate the view of the League.
Britain is a nation of animal lovers; British people hate
to see animal maltreatment or abuse; this is a nation of pet
lovers that gives care and attention to animals others countries
have much less regard for. Popular television programmes like
‘Animal Hospital’ and ‘Pet Rescue’
are not only well received, but occupy prime time viewing
hours. In modern Britain animals have come to have the same
rights as people.
Future improvements in animal welfare will depend upon the
extent to which public pressure is translated in governmental
action. There are groups campaigning for such action. The
animal liberation movement of the late twentieth century traces
its origins to Henry Salt and Jeremy Bentham:
“The day may come when the rest of the animal creation
may acquire those rights which never could have been with(held)
from them but by the hand of the tyranny.”
Bentham pointed out the defenceless nature of animals and
the torture that they could be put through courtesy of humans:
“The question is not, can they reason? Nor, can they
talk? But, can they suffer?”
The Animal Liberation Front embodied the sentiments of Bentham
and emerged as a pro-active reactionary pressure group in
Britain. The movement grabbed attention by pouring blood on
expensive fur coats and by setting fire to furriers’
warehouses. Animal freedom was high on the agenda:
“If animals are unable to free themselves…then
human beings acting on their behalf should be prepared to
do so.”
The ideology of the liberationists directly targeted people
who; oppress or abuse animals; derive benefit from such oppression;
and who do nothing to prevent abuse. A factor blamed was ‘speciesism’
– the belief that humans are superior to animals. The
ALF amongst others, aimed to curb faith in this belief:
“The aim of animal liberation…is…to deliver
animals from human oppression…and to deliver human beings
from the…confines of speciesism.”
For a long time animal cruelty organisations appeared to
be seen, but not heard. Parliamentary action was not forthcoming,
until the introduction and subsequent much delayed passing
of the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act. The bill was introduced
by Labour MP Kevin McNamara in February 1992. There was a
broad principle:
“My bill has a very simple purpose. It seeks to correct
the anomaly in the law that permits people wilfully to inflict
on a wild mammal an act of cruelty which would be criminal
if it were inflicted on a domestic animal.”
Though the bill didn’t become law until 1996, it embodied
many of the beliefs that anti-hunting groups had wanted. It
was now unlawful to inflict unnecessary suffering on a wild
animal, but there were questionable amendments. Clause 2 (b)
states that a person “shall not be guilty of an offence”
if a wild animal is killed following an injury that may have
occurred in the course of hunting . Surely this condones the
injuring of an animal as part of a hunt. If a chase has led
an animal to become so tired, that it loses it’s barings
and becomes injured, should it be lawful to kill it?
Opinion polls have shown strong opposition to hunting. In
1991, when asked if they disapproved of foxhunting, a massive
80% replied yes. In addition 79% supported a ban if Parliament
were to pass legislation doing so .
One of the reason pro-hunters used to justify their sport
centred around horses. A ban on hunting would render most
horses useless, which could lead to the unwanted scenario
of many having to be put down. However Richard Matson, a former
master of hounds and chairman of the Royal Agricultural Society
of England, pointed out that only 7% of the nation’s
600,000 horses are used in hunting and that many would be
able to find other work if hunting was banned .
The manner in which the issue of animal rights with hunting
had developed sent a clear message out with the Wild Animals
(Protection) Act:
“Animals are there for the use of man, not the abuse
of man.”
According to Regan, the belief that animals need to have
interests to have rights doesn’t wash. Are interests
a requirement for the possession of rights? How can we expect
animals to have interests when it is virtually impossible
for us to communicate with them? In addition John Webster
thinks we should leave animals alone:
“…protect their habitat and leave them to it.”
He sees that the stress and fear suffered during the hunt
is unnecessary:
“The hunted animal will certainly experience acute
fear and may suffer from exhaustion during the chase.”
Webster believes hunters wouldn’t put a horse through
such trauma and hence shouldn’t be allowed to do it
to foxes.
The Wild Mammals (Protection) Act states that killing should
only be done as a matter of necessity and if this is what
it comes down to, it is the only situation in which an animal’s
life should be ended.
Following the passing of the Act, the Committee of Inquiry
into Hunting with Dogs came to prominence. The Committee was
established to look into the practical aspects of different
types of hunting and its impact on the social and cultural
life of the countryside, the management and conservation of
wildlife and animal welfare in certain areas of the country
. The Committee recently set up a research project to look
further into these matters. According to chairman Lord Burns:
“Commissioning these pieces of work is an important
step in meeting our remit.”
The Committee is due to report by the end of May 2000.
The rise in interest in animal welfare led to a marked increase
in activity in Parliament. From the mid 1960s, the number
of bills concerning animal protection have rose dramatically.
Between 1950 and 1965 there were an average of only two bills
a year, but in the time between 1966 and 1975 this had risen
to a mean of around six, before rising to a highest post-ward
average of nearly seven per annum between 1991 and 1995 .
Compared to the United States, Britain’s obsession with
animal protection and welfare is notable. The US appears to
care less about animal welfare. The number of bills introduced
have never amounted to more than 0.5% of the total introduced
in any one post-war Congress. In contrast, bills relating
to animal protection in the UK have never fallen below 0.6%
of the total number introduced. One similarity between the
two legislatures is the significant relationship between support
and party label. Between 1985 and 1994 in the US, the Democrats
held 59% of the seats in the House of Representatives, but
82% of those most committed to animal protection turned out
to be Democrats as well. From 1987 to 1992, only 35% of MPs
were Labour in the UK, yet a massive 67% of MPs showing the
greatest commitment to animal issues were Labour, compared
to only 22% who were Conservative . This comparative study
provides proof that as a nation of animal lovers, the British
can take their sentiments further than most others, in this
case to influence Parliament.
The arguments for and against hunting make interesting reading.
At first glance the side of the animal protection and liberation
groups appears to hold the most water. By playing on the love
of animals held by British people, they are off to a clear
advantage from the start. The anti-hunting movement has begun
gaining momentum since the end of the Second World War. Hunting
is cruel; it is unnecessary for control purposes; it is degrading
to those who take part; and is ultimately socially divisive
as a class-based sport .
Hunting is also a pleasure afforded to countryfolk. It is
not cruel or degrading, but a healthy and enjoyable pursuit;
it is an essentially democratic sport; it helps to create
numerous sources of employment; and most importantly it is
legal, traditional and is the participants’ own business.
Now that hunting has become more of a public concern, there
could be more trouble ahead for the sport. The development
of the RSPCA, the League Against Cruel Sports, the emergence
of widespread press coverage, a change in public attitude,
an increased concern for animals and the improved skills of
lobbyists are all factors which could spell danger. Considering
these anti-hunting elements it would seem unlikely that hunting
will survive, at least in its present form, during the course
of the twenty-first century. The development of the media
and outspoken public opinions have led to a rise in the level
of public awareness. This has already worked to the detriment
of other causes: it could well help lead to the downfall of
hunting.
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
- HOUSE OF COMMONS HANSARD- 14th February 1992.
www.parliament.com
Accessed 13th April 2000
- GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS
- WILD MAMMALS (PROTECTION) ACT- 29th February 1996
(HMSO, 1996)
www.hmso.gov
Accessed 13th April 2000
- THE COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO HUNTING WITH DOGS-
Press notice: Hunting Inquiry Commissions Research on Key
Issues (1ts February, 2000)
Press release: Hunting Inquiry Commissions Research (25th
February, 2000)
Press release: Final Research Contracts Awarded (8th March,
2000)
www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk
Accessed 13th April 2000
- PERIODICALS
- ADRIAN FRANKLIN- On Fox-hunting and Angling: Norbert
Elias and the Sportisation Process. In: - Journal of Historical
Sociology, volume 9, number 4, December 1996.
- ROBERT GARNER- Animal Protection and Legislatures
in Britain and the United States. In: - Journal of Legislative
Studies, volume 5, number 2, Summer 1999. (Frank Cass)
- RICHARD H THOMAS- Hunting as a Political Issue.
In: - Parliamentary Affairs, volume 39, number 1, January
1986
- SECONDARY TEXTS
- JAMES TURNER- Reckoning with the Beast (John Hopkins
University Press, 1980)
- LES BROWN- Cruelty to Animals-The Moral Debt (Macmillan,
1988)
- R.G.FREY- Interests and Rights, The Case Against
Animals (Clarendon Press, 1980)
- JOHN WEBSTER- Animal Welfare, A Cool Eye Towards
Eden (Blackwell Science, 1994)
- PHILIP COWLEY- Conscience and Parliament (Frank
Cass, 1998)
- TERENCE BALL AND RICHARD DAGGER- Political Ideologies
and the Democratic Ideal
(Harper Collins, 2nd edition, 1995)
- T.G.FIELD- Fisher, Animals and the Law (UFAW,
1964)
- MISCELLANOUS
- LABOUR PARTY ELECTION MANIFESTO- New Labour, because
Britain deserves better. (Labour Party, 1997)
- THE LEAGUE AGAINST CRUEL SPORTS- Evidence for
consideration by the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with
Dogs.
www.huntinginquiry.gov.uk Accessed 13th April 2000
|
